Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Majors: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Davidabram (talk | contribs) m necessary apostrophe added in 'that's' of Mbisanz 08:02, 30 December 2007 |
|||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
:{{la|Bill Majors}} – <includeonly>([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Majors|View AfD]])</includeonly><noinclude>([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 December 30#{{anchorencode:Bill Majors}}|View log]])</noinclude> |
:{{la|Bill Majors}} – <includeonly>([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Majors|View AfD]])</includeonly><noinclude>([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 December 30#{{anchorencode:Bill Majors}}|View log]])</noinclude> |
||
Non-notable missionary. A good bio, but he hasn't done anything unusual or notable that 10,000 other missionaries haven't also done. Also, while he founded [[International Worship in English]], that also doesn't appear a notable org, but |
Non-notable missionary. A good bio, but he hasn't done anything unusual or notable that 10,000 other missionaries haven't also done. Also, while he founded [[International Worship in English]], that also doesn't appear a notable org, but that's for another time and place.[[User:Mbisanz|Mbisanz]] ([[User talk:Mbisanz|talk]]) 08:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC) |
||
*'''Delete''' Agreed as per nom. [[User:Docboat|docboat]] ([[User talk:Docboat|talk]]) 10:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC) |
*'''Delete''' Agreed as per nom. [[User:Docboat|docboat]] ([[User talk:Docboat|talk]]) 10:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC) |
||
*'''Keep the Article''' My understanding of Wikipedia is that it serves to inform netizens about factual or newsworthy people, places, and things. The problem with [[User:Mbisanz|Mbisanz]]'s argumentation is that Wikpedia should not set a standard of 'notable' or 'unusual' above any newspaper--for to do so is to limit the total exchange of reported and existent information. For instance, Wikipedia has a reference on [[aglet]]. I think most people could care less about the [[etymology]], [[definition]], and [[allusion]]s of [[aglet]], but for people like me who are interested in all information, great and small (though I, myself alone perhaps, don't grade information) are excited when they punch 'aglet' into Wikipedia and find a relative wealth of information. Therefore, I call not only for the preservation of [[Bill Majors]], but also for the welcome inclusion of any missionary who has caught the attention of any newspaper, and Majors's work has been reported by two [[capital]] [[Metropolis|metropolitan]] [[Mass media|presses]], the [[The JoongAng Daily]] and [http://www.theseoultimes.com/ The Seoul Times]. [[Bill Majors]] is a tiny Wikipedia entry because it's supported by only three [[references]], but the references are solid and it should stay. [[Jim Elliot]] has a much larger entry because of the greater fame of his story. [[Bill Majors]] has a sliver of fame in his corner of the world and he deserves a proportional piece of Wikipedia. As something as tiny and, to many, insignificant as an [[aglet]] has an entry, so any person who has been documented by a professional journalist should too. Let's expand Wikipedia by making it a concise cross-reference of media, rather than trying to enforce some nebulous standard of 'unique' or 'notable'. [[User:Davidabram|Davidabram]] ([[User talk:Davidabram|talk]]) 12:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC) |
*'''Keep the Article''' My understanding of Wikipedia is that it serves to inform netizens about factual or newsworthy people, places, and things. The problem with [[User:Mbisanz|Mbisanz]]'s argumentation is that Wikpedia should not set a standard of 'notable' or 'unusual' above any newspaper--for to do so is to limit the total exchange of reported and existent information. For instance, Wikipedia has a reference on [[aglet]]. I think most people could care less about the [[etymology]], [[definition]], and [[allusion]]s of [[aglet]], but for people like me who are interested in all information, great and small (though I, myself alone perhaps, don't grade information) are excited when they punch 'aglet' into Wikipedia and find a relative wealth of information. Therefore, I call not only for the preservation of [[Bill Majors]], but also for the welcome inclusion of any missionary who has caught the attention of any newspaper, and Majors's work has been reported by two [[capital]] [[Metropolis|metropolitan]] [[Mass media|presses]], the [[The JoongAng Daily]] and [http://www.theseoultimes.com/ The Seoul Times]. [[Bill Majors]] is a tiny Wikipedia entry because it's supported by only three [[references]], but the references are solid and it should stay. [[Jim Elliot]] has a much larger entry because of the greater fame of his story. [[Bill Majors]] has a sliver of fame in his corner of the world and he deserves a proportional piece of Wikipedia. As something as tiny and, to many, insignificant as an [[aglet]] has an entry, so any person who has been documented by a professional journalist should too. Let's expand Wikipedia by making it a concise cross-reference of media, rather than trying to enforce some nebulous standard of 'unique' or 'notable'. [[User:Davidabram|Davidabram]] ([[User talk:Davidabram|talk]]) 12:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 13:49, 30 December 2007
Non-notable missionary. A good bio, but he hasn't done anything unusual or notable that 10,000 other missionaries haven't also done. Also, while he founded International Worship in English, that also doesn't appear a notable org, but that's for another time and place.Mbisanz (talk) 08:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Agreed as per nom. docboat (talk) 10:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep the Article My understanding of Wikipedia is that it serves to inform netizens about factual or newsworthy people, places, and things. The problem with Mbisanz's argumentation is that Wikpedia should not set a standard of 'notable' or 'unusual' above any newspaper--for to do so is to limit the total exchange of reported and existent information. For instance, Wikipedia has a reference on aglet. I think most people could care less about the etymology, definition, and allusions of aglet, but for people like me who are interested in all information, great and small (though I, myself alone perhaps, don't grade information) are excited when they punch 'aglet' into Wikipedia and find a relative wealth of information. Therefore, I call not only for the preservation of Bill Majors, but also for the welcome inclusion of any missionary who has caught the attention of any newspaper, and Majors's work has been reported by two capital metropolitan presses, the The JoongAng Daily and The Seoul Times. Bill Majors is a tiny Wikipedia entry because it's supported by only three references, but the references are solid and it should stay. Jim Elliot has a much larger entry because of the greater fame of his story. Bill Majors has a sliver of fame in his corner of the world and he deserves a proportional piece of Wikipedia. As something as tiny and, to many, insignificant as an aglet has an entry, so any person who has been documented by a professional journalist should too. Let's expand Wikipedia by making it a concise cross-reference of media, rather than trying to enforce some nebulous standard of 'unique' or 'notable'. Davidabram (talk) 12:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Delete per nom, although some more solid references could move me to not care one way or the other. Besides, argument above isn't compelling (though I do appreciate the info on aglet) and the Jim Elliot statement is both waxy and, more to the point, makes exactly the opposite argument the writer is trying to make. It's sort of like saying that Bill Rodgers had a long-distance running article of more import written about him, and I had mention in a couple of articles that I ran cross-country, so I do too. I did, and I don't. ΨνPsinu 13:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)